STURNELLA MAGNA, MEADOW-LAEK. 191 



e. meridionalis. 

 (South America.) 



Stumella hido^Mcma, (?) ScL. P. Z. S. 1856, 29, 142.— (?) Lawk,, Aun. Lye. ix, 1868, 104. 

 hurnella meridionalis, ScL., Ibis, 1861, 179.— Cass., Pr. Phila. Aoad. 186G, 24. 

 Stumella magna var. meridionalis, B. 13. & E., N. A. B. ii, 1874, 11)1. 



Sail. — The typical form in Eastern North America to Nova Scotia, and north to 53°. 

 Breeds throughout its range. Winters from Maryland (sometimes Pennsylvania) south- 

 ward. (Accidental in England; SCL., Ibis, 1861, 176; Lloyd., The i'ield. Mar. 11, 

 1871; Hart., Man. Brit. B. 1872, 118.) At the edge. of the western prairies begins to 

 shade into var. neglecia, which reaches its maximum departure on the dry central 

 plains. Individuals indistinguishable from typical magna in Kansas, Iowa, and East- 

 ern Dakota, and reappearing on the moist Pacific coast. Individuals like neglecta 

 occur in Pennsylvania. Extralimital races, all inseparably connected, are distributed 

 as above noted. 



Lieutenant Warren's Erpedition. — a. magna, 9325-7, Loup Fork. — b. neglecta, 9307, 

 9312-19, 9321, Loup Fork; 9332, Platte; 4748, 4751, 47.'"3-^, "Nebraska;" 5334, 5338, 

 Fort Union ; 5336, 5341, Yellowstono ; 5335, 5339, Fort Pierre ; 5330, Fort Lookout : 

 5329, Little Cheyenne ; 4749, The Tower. 



Later Expeditions.— \ar. neglecta, 54312-15, 60,444-6, 60738-43, 60808-13, 61060-9, vari- 

 ous Wyoming localities ; 61732-3, Utah. 



Cases like the present have, until very recently, proven stumblijig-blocks. All the 

 facts were long in our possession before they received adequate and reasonable expla- 

 nation ; they were simply noted and left as found. It would be a curious and not 

 unprofitable enquiry, how much the progress of philosophic ornithology has been re- 

 tarded by the trammels of the binomial nomenclature, which practically forced ns to 

 either recognize as a species what we now call a race, or sink it into an unmeaning 

 synonym. To cite a striking example in this very case of Stumella : Dr. Cabanis, in 

 1856 ; Dr. Finsch, iu 1870 ; and Mr. Allen, in 1871, all came to the same couclusion, that 

 there is but a single species of the genus. But in a synouymical notation of thia fact, 

 such as that given by Mr. Allen, Bull. M. C. Z. ii, 288, the diifereuces of race are 

 ignored as completely as the resemblance is brought out. So far as his synonymy goes, 

 all the Sturuellas are repeated exactly alike, which is by no means the case. The 

 bringing into general use of the term " var." is a great practical help, albeit au instru- 

 ment too clumsy for the nice work of the future, we may confidently anticii)ate. I can 

 to-day foresee naturalists' reversion to a polynomial nomenclature, in which three or 

 more words shall express to a nicety the shades of their zoological meaning. Linnaeus 

 conferred au inestimable boon upon a century of natui'alists ; but an effective mode of 

 expressing the ideas then current has proven inadequate for present purposes. I raise 

 my voice emphatically in favor of freedom from the binomial shackles. 



I have not personally mvestigated the relationships of the extralimital forms, but 

 the current views of those who have, accord with my belief. The case of Stumella 

 magna neglecta is settled and explained; Magna shades directly into neglecta, and de- 

 velopes its peculiarities precisely according to the mean annual rain-fall, and conse- 

 quently the average humidity of the atmosphere of the regions iu which it resides. 

 The change is imperceptibly effected ; distinguishable examples sometimes occur to- 

 gether; the characters culminate in the most sterile regions. The peculiarities of 

 neglecta are casually exhibited in the East. I was once shown some unlabelled speci- 

 mens, which I did not hesitate to call "neglecta," and was considerably taken aback 

 on learning they were shot near Philadelphia, by Mr. Krider. 



A difference in the song, " attested by all observers from Lewis and Clarke down to 

 the present day," is very curious. My own experience in this matter agrees exactly 

 ■with that of Mr. Allen, who I will quote: "At the little village of Denison, in Iowa, 

 where I first noticed it in song, it was particularly common, and half-domestic in its 

 habits, preferring, apparently, the streets and grassy lanes, and the immediate vicinity 

 of the village, to the remoter prairie. Here, wholly unmolested and unsuspicious, it 

 collected its food ; and the males, from their accustomed perches on the house-tops, 

 daily warbled their wild song for hours together. « * » » fhy song, however, 

 was so new to me that I did not at first have the slightest suspicion its author was 

 the Western Meadow-lark, as I found it to be, the time being between daylight and 

 snnrise, and Uxe individual in question singing from the top of the court-house. It 

 differs from that of the Meadow-lark in the Eastern States in the notes being louder 

 and wilder, and at the same time more liquid, mellower, and far sweeter. They have a 

 pensiveness and a general character remarkably iu harmony with the half-dreary wild- 

 ness of the primitive prairie, as though the bird had received from its surroundings their 

 peculiar impress ; while if less loud their songs would hardly reach their mates above 

 the strong winds that almost constantly sweep over the prairies in the hot months. 

 It ditfers, too, in the less frequency of the harsh, complaining chatter so conspicuous 

 in the Eastei u birds, so much so that at first I suspected this to be wholly wanting." 



Digitized by Microsoft® 



